In May, during a special promotion offering 60,000 Ultimate Reward points for the Ink Plus and Ink Bold cards from Chase, I applied and was approved for the Ink Bold card. The annual fee on that card was waived for the first year. I wrote about it here.
In late July, for a short period, Chase offered an even better promotion for the Ink Plus card – 70,000 Ultimate Rewards points, albeit without a waiver of the first year annual fee of $95.
Some of those from the camp who got the Ink card during the May promotion quickly contacted Chase and were issued 10,000 points (the difference between the sign-up bonus they received in May, and the bonus being offered in this newest promotion).
I contacted Chase that afternoon, but apparently I was too late. I was informed that Chase would not issue the additional 10,000 Ultimate Reward points to me because the card I got was the Ink Bold charge card, not the Ink Plus credit card. I shrugged my shoulders and said Oh Well.
Yesterday, I received a letter from Chase in the mail denying my request. Hmm, I thought it had already been denied? I noticed two things. First, the rationale for the denial was entirely different from the rationale given to me a few weeks ago. Second, I thought the letter was rather snide. I could almost hear someone cackling as I read it.
What’s your take on it?
Information regarding your enrollment bonus on account ending in XXXX.
Thank you for contacting us about the enrollment bonus for 70,000 points. This offer has a $95 annual fee at the time the account was open.
We are pleased to let you know that your account will not be billed the $95 annual fee for the first year. This is comparable to the additional 10,000 points you have requested.
If you have any additional questions please call us any time.
Sincerely,
Dawn Stuhr
Customer Service Specialist.
A New York frequent flyer who elegantly combines her passions for worldwide travel, running a gazillion marathons all over the globe and staying fit ... without sacrificing her fancy for good wine and food.
I don’t know, it doesn’t seem snide to me. At all really…
I think perspective is key
thanks for your perspective Jake. If snide isn’t the right word, perhaps snarky is?
I don’t see it at all. Sounds formulaic.
thanks Heather.
I didn’t think that their decision not to match to the 70K was wrong. The initial reason they gave – that I had the Bold product not the Ink Plus product was plausible and I accepted it.
What was weird was their sending a new letter with a new reason…. to me, it seemed not necessary and crafted after the fact.
Did you decide to bank with Chase because you have to run to chase?
BTW, when they say Chase they mean your money. As in we are not giving it back so fast.
I think it’s funny the letter is signed by the Dawnster. That’s how they sign it when they want to emphasize their position. As in “Send in the Dawnster, that will wake em up”
You might be able to argue that since they denied you two times , two negatives equal a positive , therefore they have agreed to the miles. In any case…
Happy trails to you,
Richard
That is hysterical, Richard!
There is nothing worse than receiving a form-letter response following a telephone call or e-mail. Do large firms realize these automatic replies serve to lower the customer’s perception of the company as a whole? You could, of course, reply to Ms Stuhr, thanking her for the unmistakable form-letter response even though it had little correlation to your actual situation.
I got the same response but via SM
Doesn’t seem snide or cheeky. Rather, it seems fairly straightforward and to be a thoughtful position on their part.